Tag Archives: Philosophy

Is God a Coward?

Posted on by
2

In developing a theological ontology, one of the most important questions is if and in what way does God participate in this reality. Now, there are many versions of ontology in theology. Each has its own view on this idea of participation.

Here are the main ones (simplified):

  • Deism – God created this reality, then has nothing further to do with it.
  • Pantheism – The cosmos IS God but not personal (Spinoza)
  • Classic theism – God is “wholly other”
  • Panentheism – various versions where God is in some way “in the world” but also transcends it.

Now, obviously, there are many nuances and variations in these ontologies, but a huge issue for all of these is to offer an answer to the problem of evil. This particular question also raises another question. The question is: does God fully participate in this reality and therefore participate in specific acts of evil or not? From what I can tell, in all of these mainstream theological approaches, the answer is no. God does not participate in specific acts of evil. There seems to be a motivation to shield God in some way, protecting God’s so-called perfect goodness. God may be responsible, in some indirect way, for the presence of evil in the world, but God doesn’t actually perpetrate acts of evil like murder, abuse, genocide, natural disasters, etc.  To put it colloquially, “God doesn’t get God’s hands dirty”.

But what about feelings of shame and guilt over our past actions? We have all done things we regret and feel bad about. However, in some cases, the act is so egregious that the shame and guilt can be monumental, devastating, and persist for a lifetime. If God doesn’t fully participate in every aspect of this life, then God is spared from this “personal” devastation. As the creator of this reality, that seems incredibly cowardly, doesn’t it? Apparently, God doesn’t want any “blood on God’s hands.” Now, some will say that God “feels” a person’s shame and guilt. While this empathy is laudable, it’s not even close to the same thing.

TDLC Ontology

As I was trying to choose an ontology for my theology (The Divine Life Communion), it became apparent to me that only full participation in this reality by God would make sense given the problems of evil. A distant God untainted by evil just didn’t seem like a God I could have as my guide to try to live a courageous, meaningful life. Only a God who participated in every aspect of life could have any legitimate sway over how I lived my life. And so, I chose an ontology of an aspect monism (a form of priority monism in philosophical jargon). In this model, everything is a living aspect of God. Everything, including quantum fields, particles, weather, plants, animals, all the way to the most complex and sentient beings in the cosmos, are living as that aspect of the divine (a specific divine life). In other words, God lives every life, as that life (an incarnation, God-as-living). This occurs through kenosis ( a Greek word for self-emptying). Each divine life has truly its own life and a finite independence and freedom from God-as-transcendent. In other words, each life is truly an individual with its own freedom and responsibility.

So, what does this mean in the context of this post? It means that God is willing to be tainted by this reality. God is intimately involved in both the beauty and horrors of this existence. It means that from the vicissitudes of existence, God-as-living (you and everything else) can choose whether to create a stunning work of art from that complex clay of life or cop out for finite pleasures and debasement. This is the essence of choice that presents itself every day to us all and makes life meaningful.

No, God is not a coward! Quite the contrary. God chose to experience and live life in all its forms, from the most despicable to the most saintly. In other words, God chose to get God’s hands dirty. Each person has their own history and consequences, but also a divine depth that beckons to be better. Sometimes that divine spark wins out, and sometimes it doesn’t. That’s our choice. This means that God-as-living “personally” experiences shame and guilt as well as the fulfilment in creating love, beauty, and meaning.

Systematics — Laziness or Avoidance

Posted on by
Reply

It’s annoying. Since one of my interests is in metaphysics and its implications, it annoys me when people offer a metaphysical hypothesis without doing the hard work of systematics. One reason it annoys me is that, from my background as a design engineer, designs have to work. Another more important reason is that worldviews matter, and sloppy formulations can have a deleterious impact on people’s lives.

Except for a two-year stint to study theology, biblical studies, etc., at a Lutheran seminary, I worked for some 40 years as a design engineer. I even received 15 US patents for my inventions. I mention that only to suggest that I know something about design.

The cardinal principle in design engineering is that the design has to work. This means it has to meet the specifications. If it doesn’t, a design engineer may have a short career, or even people could get hurt. Specifications for systems are often very complex.  They include not only the final function but also cost, materials, time frames, production factors, deployment, the functional environment, repair ease, fault detection, and so on. Some of the systems I worked on in the aerospace industry had many pages of specifications.

What it takes
So, what does it take to design something that works? Of course, it takes knowledge and imagination. That requires training, study, and experience. But here I want to talk about why a systematic approach is crucial. Machines, software, and other systems are complicated. They usually have many moving parts that are interrelated. The human body is a good analogy. There are various organs that perform a function, but they are also related to other functions and are integrated into a whole we call a human organism. The various components don’t stand alone. Other factors within the organism impinge on their function as well.

 So, what might this have to do with a sound metaphysics? It’s crucial. One has only to survey the literature of prominent metaphysical systems in history to see that they are complex and expansive. For them, it’s not enough to make some cursory assertion and leave it at that. No. They have to deal with all sorts of implications in how parts of a system are interrelated and affect each other. In other words, each assertion affects what follows. As an example in machine design, each step in the design constrains what is possible going forward. A simple example is that if you take up too much space for some component, then the rest has to be smaller to meet the overall size specification. That may not be adequate for its function. This also applies to materials, power factors, stresses, environments, cost, range of motion, and on and on. So, in designs, there has to be a lot of forward-looking for what comes after. This is systematics — evaluating the implications of each part as it relates to the whole, with the specification in mind.

Metaphysics
What I see consistently from both many academics and social media influencers is laziness or avoidance of systematics. They just make some narrow assertion and leave it at that. It may sound good and be appealing, but if tough questions are asked of it (not often), it can collapse or devolve into all sorts of ridiculous contrivances. Hence my annoyance. Ideas matter.

The essence of systematics in metaphysics is dealing with all the issues at roughly the same time. Now, it’s not necessarily a linear process, but thinking about the effects on other factors in the system can short-circuit a lot of false starts. For instance, in theology or religious philosophy, ontology (about being) is a bedrock from which many things depend. But ontology doesn’t just spring forth from nothing. It is formulated based on prior suppositions, often based on intuitions about reality. For instance, does ontological dualism seem OK or not? Does there seem to be meaning and purpose fundamental for this reality? Is there free will? Is this reality fundamentally flawed or not? Ontologies usually spring forth from both rational, empirical, and intuitional factors. Here again, this is systematics. Lots of factors go into a metaphysical formulation. Each assertion affects what can follow.

Now, if the basic intuition for a metaphysic is that reality is fundamentally non-intentional, the system can be relatively simple. Things just happen for no grand reason. It’s all autonomic. Full stop. Of course, this rarely ends there. That’s because most people have the intuition that there is some sort of libertarian free will and that there are objective values (moral realism). This is the fly in the ointment. Again, so we get contrivances that inevitably don’t work.

However, when it comes to intentional formulations, particularly theism, things get complicated very fast. From that intuition, a vast number of formulations have emerged over the centuries and continue today.

The Key
Now, I wouldn’t presume there is a definitive theistic formulation (even my own) that has no problems. That’s not how finite systems work. Speculations about the fundamental nature of reality are always limited by our knowledge, creaturely strengths and weaknesses, biases, provincial and species inclinations, etc. However, at the very least, we should strive to be comprehensive (systematic) in our efforts. This means not shying away from the complete and difficult questions and issues.

For the theistic system I developed, I have criteria that I think are essential. Others may have different ones. Fine. Mine are the product of logic, empiricism, and experience that in some cases, lead to an intuition (a gestalt) about reality. Here are the criteria I chose.

  • Have verisimilitude (appears to be true)
  • Be monistic
  • Be ontologically personal
  • Be reasonable
  • Be systematic
  • Be science-friendly
  • No violational supernaturalism
  • No eschatology (end times) or soteriology (salvation schemes)
  • Be world-affirming
  • Affirm religious experiences and intuitions
  • Affirm ongoing divine activity
  • Affirm teleology (personal and divine purpose)
  • Affirm objective meaning
  • Affirm objective value (moral realism)
  • Affirm free will
  • Affirm the efficacy of prayer
  • Better address the problem of evil
  • Address consciousness

So, for me, all these factors need to be adequately addressed in the theology, and the answers offered need to be systematically sound and consistent.

Is it too much to ask for others to be systematic before they assert something? Sure, they can pick their own important factors in the system and present arguments for them, but don’t just spout some simple assertion and not address the profound implications of that, taking everything into account.

Something to consider:  8 × 10²² Earth Like Planets in the Universe

Posted on by
Reply

It can be very tempting to be provincial in our view of the cosmos and our place in it. This can lead to a homo-sapiens-centric cosmic view for our worldviews. However, according to current data from the Kepler telescope, it suggests that there are:

~40 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone.
And since there are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies, that gives us:

~80 sextillion (8 × 10²²) Earth-like planets in the observable universe.

So, there is a number of 8 with 22 zeros after it of planets like Earth in the habitable zones of a star. Are we to think that all these worlds are barren of any life and therefore any complex life like ours? Given how life finds a way in the most inhospitable environments on this planet, this is certainly ridiculous.

If this is ridiculous, then we, as humans, should be extremely humble about our metaphysical formulations. After all, even on our planet, there are life forms like dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, octopuses, and even more fundamental organisms that may have their own type of spirituality. If there is a divine depth to everything, as I suggest on this website, then every entity, even the most elemental, has some form of divine presence. This represents the Divine Life in everything.

What this Means.

This means that any metaphysical formulation should not be species or location-specific. Again, it is tempting to locate metaphysical insight and wisdom to our species. Arrogant, right? Humans have their own specific abilities/limitations and cultures that shape our perspective. These shape our worldviews accordingly.

Thomas Nagel wrote in his seminal paper on consciousness, “What is it like to be a Bat?” What is it like to be a being on a very different planet with different challenges? We live on a planet with all sorts of resources we take for granted. Things like iron ore, oil, timber, abundant water, suitable weather, etc. All these resources make possible the technological advances we see. What if they are not available? What shape does life take? There would be a different relationship to the environment and what is possible. And what meaning is about. Metaphysical systems should be cosmic in scope. If not, they become irrelevant just in principle.

So, all this is to say that we should be leery of being provincial in our metaphysical suggestions. Humility and metaphysical expansiveness should be our goal.